Slashdot Mirror
Skeptics Would Like Media To Stop Calling Science Deniers 'Skeptics'
Layzej writes: Prominent scientists, science communicators, and skeptic activists, are calling on the news media to stop using the word "skeptic" when referring to those who refuse to accept the reality of climate change, and instead refer to them by what they really are: science deniers. "Not all individuals who call themselves climate change skeptics are deniers. But virtually all deniers have falsely branded themselves as skeptics. By perpetrating this misnomer, journalists have granted undeserved credibility to those who reject science and scientific inquiry."
The whole point of emphasising the difference between an actual sceptic and a denier is that the sceptic questions the science, whereas the denier ignores it entirely. The scientists and others referred to in the article have no problem with the actual sceptics. Questioning the science is fine, disregarding it is not.
Oh no... it's the future.
While you can find the following on Wikipedia, the first definition from the world of computer security is somewhat of a late comer. Hacker culture was well established before before the term began to be used for the ilk who break things. The term Cracker is much more descriptive, draws a distinction between the two but, just never seemed to catch the ear of the media darlings the put on the news.
Creationists, anti-vaxxers, anti-HIV causes AIDS guys, and anti-AGWers can hardly be considered to be utilizing the scientific process honestly, let alone correctly. Hence why actual skeptics want to be distanced from them.
Oh look! An advertisement from 1906 calling copyright infringers "pirates".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Using teh term "pirates" to refer to copyright infringers is nothing new.
Bitching about it, however, is.
Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
Of course such people exist. There is no science whatsoever that says that the earth is only 6000 years old, for example, so creationists who believe that are simply denying the science. They don't question the science, they reject it; there's a difference.
I use that as an example because it is more clear-cut than the climate issue, where there are a lot of people who hold a spectrum of views which are probably somewhere between being very skeptical and being outright deniers, but for sure there are those who pretty clearly aren't interested in any science that says man-made climate change might be real.
Oh no... it's the future.
The term Cracker is much more descriptive, draws a distinction between the two but, just never seemed to catch the ear of the media darlings the put on the news.
The problem is that the term " cracker " is already well established in use, a derogatory term referring to white people from the rural south.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
From the statement: "As Fellows of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, we are concerned that the words “skeptic” and “denier” have been conflated by the popular media. Proper skepticism promotes scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims. It is foundational to the scientific method. Denial, on the other hand, is the a priori rejection of ideas without objective consideration."
They dont account for the sun?
Son, that the was among the first things they looked at.
And theyve looked at it several times since.
It's not the sun, son.
If it was the sun, we would be cooling right now.
The 11yr cycle bit is also misleading: there is some periodicity, but there is a lot of noise in that signal, as shown in this graph (which also conventiently shows that temperatures, and solar output have been moving in opposite directions for the past 35 years): http://www.skepticalscience.co...
From: http://www.skepticalscience.co...
It's the sun. And no, according to the guys who actually study this sort of thing, we're not far enough into the solar minimum to be in an actual cooling phase yet. Give it a couple more years.
No, the CAGW fans didn't look at the sun "first" - and they keep looking everywhere else. I had a climate scientist angrily tell me that "insolation is a constant!" Not according to the astronomers, it isn't.
What's even more fun is that, even if you treat total solar irradiance as a (very wobbly) constant, you have moderate variations in the frequencies of light that make up that "constant." On big variable is the amount of UV light that makes up sunlight - and (again, oddly enough), that variation has a strong match to global warming.
Some of the CAGW folks looked at the number of sunspots (after the skeptics pointed out the Sun as a possible driver) - but that's not the cycle to look for. It's actually a combination of several cycles, and the 11 year cycle is pretty much the least of those.
One more thing: if you're interested in following the ACTUAL debate over CAGW, stay away from skepticalscience. They're deeply dishonest, and have a strong tendency to delete any posts that argue against CAGW in any way.
Constantly questioning is running experiments, taking measurements, and trying to model the future and see how well it lines up with reality. Scientists are doing that all the time, and the result
And the result is that for decades we've overestimated the effect of CO2 and that all the computer models are wrong. If you deny that after the multiple studies have shown it, then you're the denier.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Doesn't matter. I hear they had words in 1906 they routinely called black people that today are "frowned upon."
"Piracy" a pejorative meant to associate copyright infringement with theft, which it is not. Also murder, scurvy, and parrots.
On the flip side, I also don't like the term "sharing." It's an attempt to associate copyright infringement with an innocuous or altruistic endeavor. It's not.
Words mean things, and I wish people would use them correctly.
Copyright infringement: the illegal copying of a work protected by copyright.
Theft: The unlawful taking of someone's belongings with the intent to deprive them of their use.
Sharing: Willingly giving a portion of your possessions to another, denying you use or benefit thereof.
Copyright infringement is not theft, because the copyright holder is not denied their property. They still have it. (Assuming no trespass or theft of physical property was required to obtain the source material)
Copyright infringement is not sharing. If I share my cake with you, I have given up a portion of my delicious cake I can no longer eat. If I share a ride with you, I've given up my personal space and privacy. But if you copy my file, I haven't given up anything. We both have full use of the file.
Let's just call things what they are, and leave the emotionally loaded words out of it.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
The science is on the side of AGW. That's it. Challenge all you want, but when you start ignoring study after study and claim they're all wrong or in some sort of conspiracy, you are not engaging in science or skepticism but block-headed cynicism.
Nearly everything you just said is blatantly untrue.
The Arctic ice cap IS shrinking.
Its mass loss is an undebatable fact.
The total volume and mass of ice is only 25% of what it was in 1979. That's not up for debate. That is a fact.
When plotted, the trend is clearly downward. Ignorant people have been siezing on the fact that "2013 and 2014 were higher than 2012 before" while ignoring hte overall trend, or the fact that 2012 was a record low, and the past few years while higher than 2012, are still lower than the plotted average. it IS shrinking.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
Actually yes.
There is more sea is because the water is freshening. Again: not a debateable fact. The less salty water is, the higher the temperature it can freeze at.
To say its freezing because its cold is to ingore the fact that the sea ice is increasing, EVEN AS THOSE REGIONS ARE WARMING, both air and sea temps.
On its own warming environment cannot produce more ice, thats not how ice works. It is only by accounting for the chainging composition of the freezeing water, specifically its salinty, that we can explain how ice can increase at the same time that both air and sea temperatures in the area are rising. Its because of fresh water inputs from the melthing land ice chainging hte local salinity of the sea water.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
And you pulled out the same tired of myth about the "heat islands." and "the heat isnt there."
guess what, the scientists arent dumb. they were after all the ones who first noticed the heat island effect. and its already been shown several times that even removing the data from said heat island (of which the sensors make up less than 25% of the total data; ie, most sensors arent subject to the phenonona youre referencing), the warming trend is still readily present, and it doesnt even effect the overall plotted data or trendlines. notice: not just compensating for the HIE, but wholly and completely removing those data points from the data, and it doesnt affect the overall picture.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
In short: you're full of it and dont have a clue what youre talking about.
But that doesnt stop you from spouting the same myths over and over without any scientific evidence.
And as long as you do, I'll be there, beating you over the head with the facts drawn from actual science and observation.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
For your review:
Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis
Article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja...
Peer Reviewed Survey http://oss.sagepub.com/content...
- A Frog in a pond utters an azure cry. -
When you actually look at the science itself, it's pretty clear. And nowhere near what the proponents claim.
For that matter, when you look at the history of AGW catastrophism, you see a lot of, well, denial.
No credible scientists is predicting the end of the world. Nor have the ever done so. Our actions have consequences. The consequences are going to cause problems. That's it.
By the people whose predictions failed miserably. So far we have NOT seen an increase in the number and size of hurricanes.
I guess you don't read, or have really poor comprehension skills. The latest IPCC report indicates that BY THE END OF THIS CENTURY (that is, 2100) that Atlantic hurricanes will decrease in number but increase in strength. Pacific hurricances (typhoons) are expected to increase in number and increase in strength. Seeing as how we are a long ways away from 2100 and these projections were made just few years ago, your claim is completely unsupported.
We have also NOT seen an increase in droughts
Again, the projections are for the END OF THIS CENTURY. Your claim is unsupported.
an increase in tornado numbers or strength
The climatology of tornadoes is not mentioned in any credible research I'm aware of. Mesoscale cyclone generation is far to small to be picked up with any reasonable skill in climate models. Straight from the IPCC report There is insufficient evidence to determine whether trends exist in small scale phenomena such as tornadoes, hail, lighting, and dust storms.
a decrease in winter snow
Actually, snow cover is supposed to increase then decrease by the end of the century. The increase in snow is a result of increased water vapor. The water vapor increase will be felt before the temperatures become warm enough to decrease overall snow cover. But again, the decrease is by 2100.
There are dozens, if not hundreds, of events that were predicted as part of CAGW that have not happened (and in many cases, the reverse has come to pass).
Complete bullshit. Climatological projections are for decades into the future. You're not going to see changes in span of a handful of years. Go ahead and try to find a peer reviewed research paper that we are supposed to have any statistically significant deviations on a sub decadal scale. You won't find one.
We still have a fairly icy polar ice cap (the "sciency" prediction from just a few years back was that it would effectively be gone by now).
Bullshit. The modelling consensus in the reviewed literature has a projection that the arctic will have an ice free summer by 2050. Some models have this happening by 2035. But not a single credible reviewed source has ever made any claim that the arctic would have an ice free summer by now.
We're also about 0.1 C below the low-end value of over 95% of predictions for global temperatures (and 0.5 C below the "most probable" number). That in itself invalidates CAGW as a scientific theory.
Bullshit. Your ignoring short term weather impacts on global temperatures as well as ignoring oceanic heat content and simply looking at surface temperature. Again, if you read the section in the IPCC on how the models work and what the projections actually represent.
But of course, you're already ignoring the fact that climatological significance is measured over multi-decadal periods so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
Yes, the Earth has warmed. Yes, some of it has been due to CO2 increases by humans. But the amount - and the results - are both badly blown predictions.
Only if your completely ignorant on the topic, which you have shown yourself to be.
That means that the followers of CAGW are, by and large, denying science because it didn't give them the result they wanted.
Why the fuck would anyone want global warming to happen?
~X~